The US plan for a so-called Space Force made headlines earlier this year, but efforts to establish intergalactic rules of engagement date back to at least 1967 with the Outer Space Treaty (OST).

The OST was a "fairly ambiguous" agreement, according to Dr. Joan S. Johnson-Freese, a professor at the US Naval War College, given our evolving knowledge of space at the time. But as our capabilities, and those of other countries, have improved, potential global conflict could be fought on off-world battlegrounds.

Ahead of a speech this week on national security at Yale University, we spoke to Dr. Johnson-Freese about the future of space exploration, the role of China, and why she has her eye on Alpha Centauri. Here are edited and condensed excerpts of our conversation; her comments are her own and do not reflect the opinions of the US government, Defense Department, or US Navy.

Dr. Johnson-Freese, I came across your research while interviewing Dr. Rachel Bronson, president and CEO of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. She indicated that the Doomsday Clock status of global destruction depends partly on staying out of space wars. There are checks in place, specifically the Outer Space Treaty (OST), could you summarize this for us? [JJF] So it is important to put the Outer Space Treaty in context, in terms of when it was signed (1967) and the current environment. In 1967, there were very few countries with space capabilities, particularly launch. The provisions of the treaty were largely drawn up in fairly ambiguous terms. How, for example, do you define the "peaceful" uses of outer space concept so heavily referenced in the OST? Or protect the interests of the US/Soviet Union?

But the situation is very different today, almost 30 years after the end of the Cold War. Yes, today there are many countries with launch capabilities or access to commercial launch capabilities, complicating the provisions. Also, the OST is based on international law, and there are no enforcement capabilities. Actually in international law there are more provisions that address potential conflicts in space AFTER it begins, than those for providing "checks" against conflict.

So the OST, in my opinion, provides some parameters for state actions in spaceno weapons of mass destructionbut even that depends on how WMD is defined, and no apportionment of heavenly bodies, but all in terms that can be debated by any two lawyers.

Dr. Joan S. Johnson-Freese

'No apportionment of heavenly bodies' means no nation can say 'we own the moon' and start parceling out real estate contracts. But what about mining asteroids?The US Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act of 2015, to spur private aerospace competitiveness and entrepreneurship, said US companies could mine asteroids for profit, [and] many European space lawyers felt this violated the Outer Space Treaty.

For clarity, Article IV of the treaty bans WMDs from orbit. It doesn't ban one being launched from, or into, space?Right, and as I said before, it doesn't define what a weapon of mass destruction is. Would that include, for example, the "Rods from God" concept that has floated around for years?

The rumored US Air Force's Project Thor kinetic bombardment?Yes. The "Rods from God" would send titanium rods to Earth from space with the force of a nuclear weapon, but without the nuclear fallout. Isn't that a WMD?

Along those lines, the most recent United Nations Conference on Disarmament, China and Russia showed a willingness for a treaty to ban space weapons, but the US has not entered negotiations. Can you help us understand the US position?The Russian-Chinese proposal is gratuitous, in my opinion, in that it only bans types of space weapons that they don't haveor at least that they aren't admitting to. Further, while many countries have voted in support of the Russian-Chinese proposal, they may well have felt able to do so knowing the US would veto it, thereby making their vote "safe"they could rhetorically support a ban, while knowing that the particular ban in question would not go through.

Also, on a side note, in 1978 the US and Soviets were talking about banning anti-satellite weapons (ASATs). The No. 1 item on the Soviet list of ASATs was...the space shuttle. Their rationale was that the robotic arm gave it the capability to pick items out of orbit and put them into the shuttle cargo bay.

You co-authored the research published in June that said 'the United States and several other countries appear to be on a path toward the overt weaponization of space,' and proposed amendments to the treaty 'as a way to slow down or abate what seems a fast-moving policy train.' Could you summarize these suggestions for us?I would not want to amend the treaty as opening it offers too great a possibility of scrapping it for those countries, including the US, that would see benefit in doing so. Instead, codicils could simply be added, pertaining to issues such as the prohibition of deliberately creating space debristhe No. 1 threat to space developmentand the long-term sustainability of the space environment for everyone's use. And keeping "safe" distances from other space objectsif an object gets any closer, intent can be inferred as unintentional but dangerous, or nefarious, and self defense is allowed. There are a number of "new" issues ripe for consideration, and areas where the institutionalization of transparency and confidence-building measures would be useful.

The big issue with the proposed Space Force is where it sits within the military structure. Can you speak to that?The issue is that space is primarily a "capability," though now it is also considered a warfighting domain. Traditionally space assets have been part of an information chainproviding critical command, control, communications, and intelligence information to give advantage to the military and prevail in conflicts. It's only recently that we've been thinking about space assets as more active than passivewith planetary defense, mining asteroids, and space weapons.

What checks are there in place against a trigger-happy leader of the free (or otherwise) world?Very few. Until recently, it was just common sense. The US worked very hard not to cross the Rubicon of overtly developing and potentially deploying space weapons, feeling that if the US weaponized space other countries would feel compelled to so the same. Now, Pentagon officials are openly talking about wanting to test a space weapon, under the rationale that weaponization is inevitable.

This is the neutral particle beam in orbit.Yes. The plan is to test that by 2023, apparently.

Let's get some backstory on you. After a PhD in Political Science and International Relations at Kent State University, you carved out a much-lauded academic career in national security affairs, including postings at the Maxwell Air Force Base; International Space University in France; the Institute of Space and Astronautical Science in Japan; and, since 2010, the US Naval War College. What inspired you to get into this field?It was totally serendipitous. I was a faculty member working on arms control at the University of Central Florida, the closest university to the Kennedy Space Center, and asked to host a visit by a (then) West German visitor, Dr. Hermann Strub. He was the head of their space program. He became a mentor and got me grants to work on US-Europe space cooperation issues.

In your role today at the US Naval War College, how much of your time do you spend on kinetic versus non-kinetic cyber warfare studies now, and when did you see that shift?There has been a clear shift in US policy toward the overt weaponization of spacespace warfare doctrine is now a fast moving train. That began in 2013 with the Chinese launch of a "space science" mission that the US saw as potential anti-satellite weapons to high altitudewhat we call the sanctuary orbit. Sadly, there is even less attention to diplomatic ways to address space issues than in the past.

As an expert on the Chinese space program, can you give us your insights into their progress?The difference between China and the US is the story of the tortoise and the hare. When the US is energized there's nothing stopping us. But the Chinese play a very long game; they've studied NASA's programs extensively. However, it's important to note they've not taken over the US in terms of space technology. I find that irritating when people assume that, because it's not true. But the Chinese are very aware of the prestige potential of space. With the dark side of the moon mission, they're very intent on getting into the record books. They realize that prestige translates into strategic influence.

And it's your opinion that they'll have a human lunar spaceflight program?Yes, in fact at one time I was convinced that the next voice transmission we hear from the moon would be in Mandarin. Now, however, I think there's a chance it will be Englishbut through a private company rather than NASA program.

Aside from national heroics, space is a fertile spot for innovation.Yes. My optimism right now is on the NewSpace development efforts, who are leading commercial space industry advocacy, as a key enabler to space settlement. Essentially there are two parallel trends in space going on right now: one is the potential for conflict, but the other is the development of space through the NewSpace companies. In my opinion, the private sector is doing the real cool, gee-whiz stuff right now. That's where the real innovation is taking place, and where we've had true breakthroughs in launch technology. Hopefully, they will influence the military in terms of not destroying the space environment.

Finally, there's a lot of talk about the moon and Mars, but where else are you looking in terms of space exploration innovation?I'm very interested in the plans to reach Alpha Centauri. The Breakthrough Starshot, part of the NewSpace wave, is a privately funded initiative that is trying to put together a multi-national, multi-disciplinary team to send the first spacecraftactually very small Star Chipsto Alpha Centauri, using a very high-power laser array to propel many Star Chips on their way using a solar sail, toward having one or more surviving the journey.

I've co-authored a paper called "Leaving Earth's Driveway," which is currently under review for publication. In that paper we explore moving beyond the same basic rocket technology we've been using since the 1950s, and moving into exciting areas like directed energy propulsion. Of course, even using this technology, it will still take us 20 years to get to Alpha Centauri. But at least we'll have moved out of "Earth's Driveway" and really start exploring our solar system, and beyond.

Dr. Joan S. Johnson-Freese will discuss her research at Yale University on Friday, Nov. 22 at noon.

See the original post here:

Space Wars: Are We Ready for Intergalactic Conflict? - PCMag